RE-TRIAL REFUSED.

Auckland Star, Volume LXII, Issue 194, 18 August 1931, Page 8

RE-TRIAL REFUSED.

CLAIM FOR COMPENSATION.

ALLEGATION NOT PROVED

COURT'S LIMITED POWER

An application for a new trial on the ground that the judgment in the original case, which was heard in Hamilton, was obtained by fraud, was refused in the Arbitration Court this morning, the Court deciding that there was insufficient evidence to warrant a new trial. The application was brought by Mr. W. Noble on behalf of Laurence Voclanovich, labourer, of Auckland, against W. J. Woods, contractor, of Te Kuiti. Mr. J. Hore appeared for Woods. The original case was heard iu Hamilton on March 4, plaintiff claiming compensation for injuries allegedly received while blasting , in a quarry at Pio Pio. Plaintiff said that while running after filing a shot he fell over a rock and injured his knee. He claimed weekly compensation, medical expenses, and general costs. The Court found for the defendant. Mr. Noble's motion was based on the allegation that one, Frederick Wilson, gave false evidence. This was denied by Mh Hore, who also submitted that the Court had not the power to order a new trial. Mr. Noble: It would be a scandalous thing if this Court is different from any other Court in the Fritisli Empire, and can see a judgment tainted with fraud stand. Considerable argument followed between Mr. Justice Frazer and Mr. Hore regarding the power of the Court under sections 29 and :30 of the Workers' Compensation Act. The judge said that the Act was shockingly drafted. It had been considerably amended, and amendments had been "pitchforked in," which left the meaning much in doubt. Mr. Hore: It is a matter which should be remedied by legislation. The Court retired to consider its judgment, which was later delivered by the judge. His Honor said that there was nothing about Wilson's testimony or Alcock's to lead the Court to say they had committed perjury. The Court would not alter its decision. Commenting on the Act, his Honor said it was clear that a new trial could only be granted in special cases. It was an oversight that the Act did not make fuller provision for a new -trial in such cases. The reason, however, was that the Arbitration Court was a workingman's court, and it would be undesirable for wealthy rqen to be able to hold up a judgment by appeals. If that were permitted the working man would be at a disadvantage. It did seem, however, that some provision should be made for granting of a new trial where the Court thought fit to grant one. Costs, fixed at £5 5/, were awarded to defendants.